USDA Performance Analysis Using Baldrige Criteria

Organizational Profile

This report summarizes the role of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as analyzed through the Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence. The analysis includes an organizational profile, a self-analysis, and a narrative summary of recommendations derived from that profile and analysis. The seven categories addressed as part of the Baldrige-assisted analysis are leadership, strategic planning, customer focus, measurement/analysis/knowledge management, workforce focus, operations focus, and results. While some may dismiss the role of the USDA as mundane or unimportant, this could not be further from the truth.

As explained on the USDA website, the agency is one that "provides leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on public policy, the best available science, and effective management" (USDA, 2016). The vision statement of the USDA reads:

"We have a vision to provide economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive; to promote agriculture production that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed others throughout the world; and to preserve our Nation's natural resources through conservation, restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands" (USDA, 2016).

Leadership

The strategic plan of the organization, discussed in greater depth below, serves as a roadmap for the department to help ensure that the overall mission and vision are achieved. The presiding Secretary of Agriculture is Tom Vilsack, and the Deputy Secretary of the agency is Krysta Harden. The USDA has been in operation for more than one hundred and fifty years. The agency's primary function is to support and regulate the agricultural sector in the United States, ensuring that all participants follow the same rules and that farmers and consumers alike are assisted by the agency.

The workforce profile of the USDA is fairly straightforward. High-level leaders work alongside lower-level departments and sub-agencies. Facilities and resources are distributed across regional offices and headquarters. The organizational structure is fairly to very hierarchical in nature, particularly at the top. The customers and stakeholders are essentially everyone in the United States, since all Americans are affected by how food reaches the dinner table and by who is involved in producing it (USDA, 2016).

The leadership structure of the USDA is not unlike that of other federal agencies. The secretaries of the agency are appointed by the President and must be reviewed and approved by Congress. Those appointees are then subject to the laws and parameters that govern the country at large, as well as the specific rules and guidelines pertaining to their agency. Just as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act heavily shapes the behavior of the Department of Health and Human Services, the same is true for the USDA with respect to the laws — both direct and indirect — that govern it. While rank-and-file employees are typically hired, fired, and trained by agency leadership rather than being appointed or elected, those leaders are ultimately answerable to the President and Congress. A real-world illustration of this accountability is the interrogation by Congress and subsequent removal of the leader of the Department of Veterans Affairs (e.g., Shinseki) in response to failures in serving veterans (OPM, 2016).

When it comes to governance, several features are common to most government agencies. A central overarching goal is to ensure consumer safety and to maintain the trust of taxpayers. All activities and operations of the USDA are funded by public tax dollars, as is the case with any government agency. The USDA does not produce goods for sale; rather, it works with farmers and developers to ensure that food is safe and that the nation's agricultural development proceeds responsibly. This responsibility connects directly to the societal obligations of the agency.

Strategic Planning

The agency must be open to innovative methods while simultaneously ensuring that those methods are safe and acceptable to the public. A prominent example is the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food production. Many consumers are suspicious of or openly critical of the practices of companies such as Monsanto. While technological and agricultural improvements are important, it is also essential to examine the long-term health, economic, and environmental ramifications of such changes. There must be a balance between allowing private firms to innovate and preventing them from moving forward with practices that could be harmful. Political power plays and a lack of professional ethics should never be permitted to enter the picture, as they only compound existing problems. The USDA is no different from any other business or government agency in this regard (USDA, 2016).

A key principle of strategic planning is that long-term outcomes and goals should take precedence over individual action items viewed in isolation. Each individual action should be part of a broader, long-term strategy guided by sound logic, reason, and evidence-based results. Political favoritism and pandering should have no place in this process. If, for example, the USDA identifies a problem with a farmer's land use, it must handle that matter judiciously. The agency's authority should not be abused. A farmer engaged in activities that pollute the land may warrant intervention, but the fact that a farmer does not fully comply with the agency's preferences is not sufficient grounds for seizing land or imposing excessive controls. Once a person owns land, they should generally have the right to use it as they see fit. At the same time, the USDA should engage in dialogue with farmers and offer incentives for alternative approaches. Farmers should not be compelled to change course unless safety or another critical concern is at stake (USDA, 2016).

In keeping with a sound strategic focus, the USDA should ensure that it capitalizes on its core competencies and continuously works to strengthen and expand those competencies in light of technological advances, innovation, and evolving best practices. Long-term goals should remain the primary focus, but short-term deviations are appropriate when circumstances demand it. For example, the long-term agricultural management plans for the greater New Orleans area could not simply continue uninterrupted following Hurricane Katrina. The immediate priorities — reclaiming damaged fields, rebuilding farm infrastructure, and accounting for population displacement — necessarily took precedence. In other words, pressing toward long-term goals is important, but short-term adjustments must be made when the situation calls for them.

Long-term plans may also need to be paused or revised when new technology, demographic shifts, or changes in the stakeholder landscape alter the available options. Stakeholders involved in any situation addressed by the USDA must be on board with the agency's direction, or the effectiveness of USDA efforts will be diminished or neutralized entirely. The USDA should work as a partner rather than an adversary. This is not to say that disagreement between non-government stakeholders and the USDA will never occur. However, USDA personnel and management must remember that they are — directly or indirectly — appointed based on the will of the people. Government personnel work for the people, not the other way around (USDA, 2016).

Finally, when there is a major shift in overall market conditions or in the broader economy, the USDA's priorities and mandates should account for those shifts rather than rigidly adhering to prior directives. Some standards — such as consumer safety and prohibitions on price gouging — should remain non-negotiable. Everything else should be open to revision if the public demands it or the situation warrants change. For instance, agricultural subsidies may be appropriate in one year but may create inflated prices or market gluts in another. Subsidies should therefore be adjusted or eliminated based on current conditions. Using funding to curry political favor is unethical, wasteful of taxpayer money, and distorts market dynamics — a situation that tends to disproportionately harm small and family-owned farms. The ordinary rules of supply and demand should govern agricultural commodities unless there is a compelling reason for government intervention (USDA, 2016).